Where I Stand 1974 — Hank Greenspun: Those seeking recounts should get money’s worth

Friday, Dec. 22, 2000 | 11:11 a.m.

Note to readers: This column by Sun founder Hank Greenspun appeared on Dec. 6, 1974.

You pay your money, you should get your money's worth.

Democratic Senate candidate Harry Reid, a loser in last month's election to Paul Laxalt by less than 700 votes, asked for a recount -- which is his right.

A recount is designed to detect errors, deficiencies, miscalculations and outright fraud. Where the human element is involved, human frailties become a factor and we know of places where "the dead vote often."

This happened in Las Vegas years ago where truckloads of adults would be imported from California to vote and many of the precincts showed more voters than registrants.

The Sun knows of some Northern Nevada precincts -- and we are not making any specific charges -- where tabulations show more people voted than were registered.

Reid asked for a recount, just as Laxalt asked for a recount in 1964 against Howard Cannon. The law says if a man isn't happy with results of an election he is entitled to a recount as long as he pays for it.

Reid is paying for it. He is entitled to a fair and accurate revaluation. And most of all, the voters and taxpayers are entitled to a fair count. But when a recount is conducted and original tabulation procedures are followed, the possibilities are strong that the same errors and/or "oversights" will be compounded, not rectified.

Some say Reid's demand smacks of "sour grapes." If this be the case were the grapes any sweeter when Laxalt sought his 1964 retabulations?

The Sun believes the present result will not change.

But Reid paid his money, took his chance and is entitled to all legal considerations. Due to the manner in which the recount is being conducted neither Reid nor the voters are getting their fair chance at the "pass line." The recount "dice" may not be loaded but there is no "eye in the sky" overlooking each recount station as is standard in any major casino. The November results are being recounted with no observers peering over workers' shoulders in the forms of Reid/Laxalt representatives.

If responsible Nevada officials shun the burden incumbent upon them to conduct a fair, impartial recount then the Sun urges the U.S. Senate to impound the ballots and conduct the operation on a federal level. Then we might get an impartial recount.

This newspaper is not concerned about the integrity of Nevada's bureaucrats, although past actions have triggered strong indications there is room for skepticism. We are concerned about the integrity of the state of Nevada and that all men get a fair shot at elective offices as is their right under both the U.S. and state constitutions, not to mention the taxpayers.

Initial recount tabulations have already indicated Reid picking up votes in some surprising areas of the state. That does not mean he will win. It does indicate errors were made.

Nevada, above all states, cherishes her state's rights. We don't want the federal bureaucracy poling its emotionless computers into our business. But there are exceptions to every rule and situation. The Reid/Laxalt Senate race and recount procedure may pose one of those exceptions.

If the lieutenant governor does not get what he paid for in the current recount as Laxalt did in 1964 under full disclosure procedures then it is the right, if not the duty, of all parties concerned to invite the U.S. Senate to step in as a last resort.

It was no secret that this newspaper felt Reid to be far better qualified for the Nevada Senate seat than Laxalt. But the voters have spoken. We do not challenge their voice.

We challenge only the possibility that the voters' voices may have become muffled or slurred somewhere along the human/computer pathway from the polls to the U.S. Senate floor.

We want the voters to decide which man will represent them. Not the computers or the perhaps corrupt bureaucrats or the precinct worker who mistakenly transcribes a 333 to an 888 because his or her mind was on a family problem.

Let the voters speak. Let the voters be heard. Let all concerned get true value for their money.